1
|
Golijanin B, Bhatt V, Homer A, Malshy K, Ochsner A, Wales R, Khaleel S, Mega A, Pareek G, Hyams E. "Shared decision-making" for prostate cancer screening: Is it a marker of quality preventative healthcare? Cancer Epidemiol 2024; 88:102492. [PMID: 38056246 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2023.102492] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2023] [Revised: 11/04/2023] [Accepted: 11/10/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND "Shared decision-making" (SDM) is a cornerstone of prostate cancer (PCa) screening guidelines due to tradeoffs between clinical benefits and concerns for over-diagnosis and over-treatment. SDM requires effort by primary-care-providers (PCP) in an often busy clinical setting to understand patient preferences with the backdrop of patient risk factors. We hypothesized that SDM for PCa screening, given its prominence in guidelines and practical challenges, may be associated with quality preventative healthcare in terms of other appropriate cancer screening and encouragement of other preventative health behaviors. METHODS From the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, 50-75 year old men who underwent PSA screening were assessed for their participation in SDM, PCa and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, and other preventative health behaviors, like vaccination, exercise, and smoking status. Adjusted odds ratio of likelihood of PSA testing as a function of SDM was calculated. Likelihoods of SDM and PSA testing as a function of preventative health behaviors were also calculated. RESULTS Screening rates were 62 % for PCa and 88 % for CRC. Rates of SDM were 39.1 % in those with PSA screening, and 16.2 % in those without. Odds of PSA screening were higher when SDM was present (AOR = 2.68). History of colonoscopy was associated with higher odds of SDM (AOR = 1.16) and PSA testing (AOR = 1.94). Health behaviors, like regular exercise, were associated with increased odds of SDM (AOR = 1.14) and PSA testing (AOR = 1.28). History of flu vaccination (AOR = 1.29) and pneumonia vaccination (AOR = 1.19) were associated with higher odds of SDM. Those who received the flu vaccine were also more likely to have PSA testing (AOR = 1.36). Smoking was negatively associated with SDM (AOR = 0.86) and PSA testing (AOR = 0.93). Older age was associated with higher rates of PSA screening (AOR = 1.03, CI = 1.03-1.03). Black men were more likely than white men to have SDM (AOR = 1.6, CI = 1.59 - 1.6) and decreased odds of PSA testing (AOR = 0.94, CI = 0.94 - 0.95). CONCLUSIONS SDM was associated with higher odds of PSA screening, CRC screening, and other appropriate preventative health behaviors. Racial disparities exist in both SDM and PSA screening usage. SDM may be a trackable metric that can lead to wider preference-sensitive care and improved preventative care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Borivoj Golijanin
- The Minimally Invasive Urology Institute at The Miriam Hospital, Division of Urology, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States.
| | - Vikas Bhatt
- The Minimally Invasive Urology Institute at The Miriam Hospital, Division of Urology, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States
| | - Alexander Homer
- The Minimally Invasive Urology Institute at The Miriam Hospital, Division of Urology, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States
| | - Kamil Malshy
- The Minimally Invasive Urology Institute at The Miriam Hospital, Division of Urology, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States
| | - Anna Ochsner
- The Minimally Invasive Urology Institute at The Miriam Hospital, Division of Urology, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States
| | - Rebecca Wales
- The Minimally Invasive Urology Institute at The Miriam Hospital, Division of Urology, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States
| | - Sari Khaleel
- The Minimally Invasive Urology Institute at The Miriam Hospital, Division of Urology, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States
| | - Anthony Mega
- Lifespan Cancer Institute, Department of Hematology and Oncology, The Miriam Hospital, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States
| | - Gyan Pareek
- The Minimally Invasive Urology Institute at The Miriam Hospital, Division of Urology, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States
| | - Elias Hyams
- The Minimally Invasive Urology Institute at The Miriam Hospital, Division of Urology, Lifespan Academic Medical Center, the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02906, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yourman LC, Bergstrom J, Bryant EA, Pollner A, Moore AA, Schoenborn NL, Schonberg MA. Variation in Receipt of Cancer Screening and Immunizations by 10-year Life Expectancy among U.S. Adults aged 65 or Older in 2019. J Gen Intern Med 2024; 39:440-449. [PMID: 37783982 PMCID: PMC10897072 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-023-08439-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2023] [Accepted: 09/18/2023] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The likelihood of benefit from a preventive intervention in an older adult depends on its time-to-benefit and the adult's life expectancy. For example, the time-to-benefit from cancer screening is >10 years, so adults with <10-year life expectancy are unlikely to benefit. OBJECTIVE To examine receipt of screening for breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer and receipt of immunizations by 10-year life expectancy. DESIGN Analysis of 2019 National Health Interview Survey. PARTICIPANTS 8,329 non-institutionalized adults >65 years seen by a healthcare professional in the past year, representing 46.9 million US adults. MAIN MEASURES Proportions of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings, and immunizations, were stratified by 10-year life expectancy, estimated using a validated mortality index. We used logistic regression to examine receipt of cancer screening and immunizations by life expectancy and sociodemographic factors. KEY RESULTS Overall, 54.7% of participants were female, 41.4% were >75 years, and 76.4% were non-Hispanic White. Overall, 71.5% reported being current with colorectal cancer screening, including 61.4% of those with <10-year life expectancy. Among women, 67.0% reported a screening mammogram in the past 2 years, including 42.8% with <10-year life expectancy. Among men, 56.8% reported prostate specific antigen screening in the past two years, including 48.3% with <10-year life expectancy. Reported receipt of immunizations varied from 72.0% for influenza, 68.8% for pneumococcus, 57.7% for tetanus, and 42.6% for shingles vaccination. Lower life expectancy was associated with decreased likelihood of cancer screening and shingles vaccination but with increased likelihood of pneumococcal vaccination. CONCLUSIONS Despite the long time-to-benefit from cancer screening, in 2019 many US adults age >65 with <10-year life expectancy reported undergoing cancer screening while many did not receive immunizations with a shorter time-to-benefit. Interventions to improve individualization of preventive care based on older adults' life expectancy may improve care of older adults.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lindsey C Yourman
- Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
- Medical Care Services, County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, San Diego, CA, USA.
| | - Jaclyn Bergstrom
- Medical Care Services, County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Elizabeth A Bryant
- Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | | | - Alison A Moore
- Medical Care Services, County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Nancy Li Schoenborn
- Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Mara A Schonberg
- Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dickson-Swift V, Adams J, Spelten E, Blackberry I, Wilson C, Yuen E. Breast cancer screening motivation and behaviours of women aged over 75 years. Psychooncology 2024; 33:e6268. [PMID: 38110243 DOI: 10.1002/pon.6268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2023] [Revised: 11/29/2023] [Accepted: 11/29/2023] [Indexed: 12/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In Australia, breast screening is offered free every two years to women aged 50-74 years. Women aged ≥75 are eligible to receive a free mammogram but do not receive an invitation. This study aimed to explore the motivations and behaviours of women living in Australia aged ≥75 years regarding ongoing breast cancer screening given the public health guidance. METHODS Sixty women aged ≥75 were recruited from metropolitan, regional, and rural areas across Australia to participate in a descriptive qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were used to seek reflection on women's experience of screening, any advice they had received about screening beyond 75, their understanding of the value of screening and their intention to participate in the future. Thematic analysis of transcripts led to the development of themes. RESULTS Themes resulting from the study included: reasons to continue and discontinue screening, importance of inclusivity in the health system and availability of information. Regular screeners overwhelmingly wished to continue screening and had strong beliefs in the benefits of screening. Women received limited information about the benefits or harms of screening beyond age 75 and very few had discussed screening with their Primary Healthcare Provider. No longer receiving an invitation to attend screening impacted many women's decision-making. CONCLUSION More information via structured discussion with health professionals is required to inform women about the risks and benefits of ongoing screening. No longer being invited to attend screening left many women feeling confused and for some this led to feelings of discrimination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Virginia Dickson-Swift
- Violet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
| | - Joanne Adams
- Violet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
| | - Evelien Spelten
- Violet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
| | - Irene Blackberry
- John Richards Centre for Rural Ageing Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Wodonga, Victoria, Australia
| | - Carlene Wilson
- Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- La Trobe University, School of Psychology and Public Health, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
| | - Eva Yuen
- Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- La Trobe University, School of Psychology and Public Health, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
- Institute for Health Transformation, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
- Centre for Quality and Patient Safety - Monash Health Partnership, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Smith J, Dodd RH, Naganathan V, Cvejic E, Jansen J, Wallis K, McCaffery KJ. Screening for cancer beyond recommended upper age limits: views and experiences of older people. Age Ageing 2023; 52:afad196. [PMID: 37930739 DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afad196] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Revised: 08/21/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Internationally, screening programmes and clinical practice guidelines recommend when older adults should stop cancer screening using upper age limits, but it is unknown how older adults view these recommendations. OBJECTIVE To examine older adults' views and experiences about continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the recommended upper age limit for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer. DESIGN Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. SETTING Australia, telephone. SUBJECTS A total of 29 community-dwelling older adults (≥70-years); recruited from organisation newsletters, mailing lists and Facebook advertisements. METHODS Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS Firstly, older adults were on a spectrum between trusting recommendations and actively deciding about cancer screening, with some who were uncertain. Secondly, participants reported limited in-depth discussions with health professionals about cancer screening. In primary care, discussions were focused on checking they were up to date with screening or going over results. Discussions mostly only occurred if older adults initiated themselves. Finally, participants had a socially- and self-constructed understanding of screening recommendations and potential outcomes. Perceived reasons for upper age limits were cost, reduced cancer risk or ageism. Risks of screening were understood in relation to their own social experiences (e.g. shared stories about friends with adverse outcomes of cancer treatment or conversations with friends/family about controversy around prostate screening). CONCLUSIONS Direct-to-patient information and clinician support may help improve communication about the changing benefit to harm ratio of cancer screening with increasing age and increase understanding about the rationale for an upper age limit for cancer screening programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenna Smith
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Rachael H Dodd
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Vasi Naganathan
- Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Concord Repatriation Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Concord Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Erin Cvejic
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jesse Jansen
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Katharine Wallis
- General Practice Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland, Queensland, QLD, Australia
| | - Kirsten J McCaffery
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Brotzman LE, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Perceived Barriers Among Clinicians and Older Adults Aged 65 and Older Regarding Use of Life Expectancy to Inform Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review and Comparison. Med Care Res Rev 2023; 80:372-385. [PMID: 36800914 DOI: 10.1177/10775587231153269] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/20/2023]
Abstract
While cancer screening guidelines increasingly recommend incorporating life expectancy estimates to inform screening decisions for older adults, little is known about how this happens in practice. This review summarizes current knowledge about primary care clinician and older adult (65+) perspectives about use of life expectancy to guide cancer screening decisions. Clinicians report operational barriers, uncertainty, and hesitation around use of life expectancy in screening decisions. They recognize it may help them more accurately weigh benefits and harms but are unsure how to estimate life expectancy for individual patients. Older adults face conceptual barriers and are generally unconvinced of the benefits of considering their life expectancy when making screening decisions. Life expectancy will always be a difficult topic for clinicians and patients, but there are advantages to incorporating it in cancer screening decisions. We highlight key takeaways from both clinician and older adult perspectives to guide future research.
Collapse
|
6
|
Smith J, Dodd RH, Gainey KM, Naganathan V, Cvejic E, Jansen J, McCaffery KJ. Patient-Reported Factors Associated With Older Adults' Cancer Screening Decision-making: A Systematic Review. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2133406. [PMID: 34748004 PMCID: PMC8576581 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33406] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Decisions for older adults (aged ≥65 years) and their clinicians about whether to continue to screen for cancer are not easy. Many older adults who are frail or have limited life expectancy or comorbidities continue to be screened for cancer despite guidelines suggesting they should not; furthermore, many older adults have limited knowledge of the potential harms of continuing to be screened. OBJECTIVE To summarize the patient-reported factors associated with older adults' decisions regarding screening for breast, prostate, colorectal, and cervical cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW Studies were identified by searching databases from January 2000 to June 2020 and were independently assessed for inclusion by 2 authors. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently conducted by 2 authors, and then all decisions were cross-checked and discussed where necessary. Data analysis was performed from September to December 2020. FINDINGS The search yielded 2475 records, of which 21 unique studies were included. Nine studies were quantitative, 8 were qualitative, and 4 used mixed method designs. Of the 21 studies, 17 were conducted in the US, and 10 of 21 assessed breast cancer screening decisions only. Factors associated with decision-making were synthesized into 5 categories: demographic, health and clinical, psychological, physician, and social and system. Commonly identified factors associated with the decision to undergo screening included personal or family history of cancer, positive screening attitudes, routine or habit, to gain knowledge, friends, and a physician's recommendation. Factors associated with the decision to forgo screening included being older, negative screening attitudes, and desire not to know about cancer. Some factors had varying associations, including insurance coverage, living in a nursing home, prior screening experience, health problems, limited life expectancy, perceived cancer risk, risks of screening, family, and a physician's recommendation to stop. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although guidelines suggest incorporating life expectancy and health status to inform older adults' cancer screening decisions, older adults' ingrained beliefs about screening may run counter to these concepts. Communication strategies are needed that support older adults to make informed cancer screening decisions by addressing underlying screening beliefs in context with their perceived and actual risk of developing cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenna Smith
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Rachael H. Dodd
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Karen M. Gainey
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Vasi Naganathan
- Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, Concord Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Erin Cvejic
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jesse Jansen
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Kirsten J. McCaffery
- Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|